On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 09:17:02PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> We had servers that ended up with twice or three times the number of
> users than other servers in the rotation, and explaining it all away
> with "well, the network of the less loaded server simply must suck, so
> clients cannot st
[I've only just caught up on this issue, and I'm just going to add a
minor anecdote.]
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Then it's a good thing that behaviour's documented in a standards-track
> RFC so they know what to expect before doing the roll-out. And as far
> as I can see, the act
Aurelien Jarno writes ("Bug#438179: fixed in glibc 2.7-4"):
> reopen 438179
> thanks
..
> We have followed the decision of the tech-ctte before knowing the
> decision was not correct.
I'd just like to put on record hee my apology for my mistake.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Call for Votes (getaddrinfo)"):
> * Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071207 03:46]:
> > We don't. See also
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/05/msg00027.html
>
> Frankly speaking, I consider it a bug that for a 3:1 supermajority we
> need a 4:1 vot
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071207 03:46]:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:25:29AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > 7-day period, which has just expired:
> > > X F S M Ian, Manoj
> > > X F M S Andi
> > > M F AJ
> > > F defeats S by 4:0, so S is eliminated.
> >
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:55:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I haven't seen any concrete reports we could pass on, or any indication
> > we're likely to come up with a better mechanism, though, which leaves us
> > as doing nothing by default.
> I've previously argued that there are at least
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 12:12:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't see any reason to like the current behaviour, so parallel to that,
> I'd also say:
> [1] We should work out what a desirable prefix sorting behaviour
> is, that works the same way for IPv4 and IPv6, and propose it
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 438179
Bug#438179: Please provide a way to override RFC3484
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
you may need to use 'found' to remove fixed versions.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
Stopping pr
reopen 438179
thanks
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:17:05AM +, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:49:02 +0100
> Source: glibc
> Binary: libc0.1-prof libc6.1-alphaev67 libc6-dev-amd64 locales-all libc6-i686
> libc6-d
9 matches
Mail list logo
